The Wanganui Chronicle SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 1927. THE SEAMEN AND THE LABOUR PARTY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19783, 5 March 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 1927. THE SEAMEN AND THE LABOUR PARTY

As was anticipated the Auckland seamen’s resolution approving of the expulsion of the general secretary and other officials of the Seamen’s Union is being endorsed by the men further south. The Wellington branch of the Union has not only taken the same attitude, but has gone even further. The Wellington men’s resolution calls upon the New Zealand Labour Party to request the resignation of the Union’s general secretary and two others from the party on grounds that they have acted contrary to the workers’ best interests. Further, it is asked on similar grounds that the general secretary’s name be removed from the list of the party’s candidates for the municipal elections. These requests—which, practically speaking, are demands—constitute a distinct challenge to the Labour Party, and it is of considerable significance that they come, not from outside, but from within its own ranks. The Labour Party has dallied a good deal with the “one big union” idea and its advocates. Perhaps it may claim that it has not, as a party, officially stood behind such a movement. But many of its prominent members have done so without rebuke from the party leaders, and the party, therefore, must at the very least accept responsibility for including these men in its ranks. That the electors hold the Labour Party responsible for the “one big union” foolishness—to the detriment of genuine Trade Unionism-—and for all the disturbance that has followed in its wake was proved clearly enough at last general election. The party made a special appeal to the workers—the majority of the population—for support, with the result that it succeeded only in losing some of the seats it held. Had the appeal gone home, the result would naturally have been otherwise. But the party has always misjudged the mentality of the New Zealand worker, and mistaken the view of a noisy few for that of the mass. The New Zealand working man, as a rule, is not given to talking much about constitutionalism and he is rather suspicious (rightly enough sometimes) of lip loyalty. But for all that, he is loyal as the people of any other class and strong for constitutional methods. The mere fact that he has consistently refused to vote the Labour Party into power shows that he is not prepared to trust it. And the reason for his distrust lies in the party’s tolerance of firebrands in its ranks. However, the Wellington seamen’s resolution gives the Labour Party an opportunity—which we imagine, will be far from welcome—of putting itself on side. What it will do, no one can guess. It can grant the seamen’s request and thereby make much trouble for itself among its own membership. Or it can refuse it, and thus alienate not only the seamen, but a great number of other Unionists as well. It rather looks as if it were caught in a cleft stick. There is always room for a good, sound Opposition in the politics of any country, and a Labour Opposition, provided it be composed of sane and sensible men, would do as good work as any other. But an Opposition which flirts with extremists and allows itself to be swayed by them, which keeps them in its ranks, which tolerates disloyal and subversive words and actions without rebuke, and which lacks the courage to free itself from such influences will never do any good either for itself or for its supporters.

It will be interesting to see what the Labour Party will do, The seamen’s challenge is something it cannot ignore.